Garces v. Ruiz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
MATTHEW ANDREW GARCES,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER F. RUIZ, BADGE #1028,
SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPART-
MENT; OFFICER FNU ARIZOLA,
BADGE #1818, SAN ANTONIO PO-
LICE DEPARTMENT; SAN ANTO-
NIO POLICE DEPARTMENT, PUB-
LIC SAFETY HEADQUARTERS; AND
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,
Defendants.
Case No. 5:25-CV-00339-JKP
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Henry J. Bemporad, (ECF No. 36), filed December 17, 2025. Judge Bemporad recommends the
Court dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute his case and failure to comply with the Court’s orders. Id. Upon consideration, the
Court ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.
Case 5:25-cv-00339-JKP Document 40 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 4

2
This case is one of numerous pro se lawsuits filed by Plaintiff.1 Many of Plaintiff’s
claims have been dismissed for failure to state non-frivolous claims. Due to this pattern of filing
frivolous matters, United States Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad previously recommended
Plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant. See Garces v. Rossbach, et al., 5:25-cv-441-JKP-HJB,
Report and Recommendation (W.D. Tex. June 4, 2025). The District Court adopted Judge Bem-
porad’s Report and Recommendation, declared Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, and enjoined him
from filing civil suits in the Western District of Texas without first obtaining leave of Court. See
Garces v. Rossbach, et al., 5:25-cv-441-JKP, Order (W.D. Tex. September 4, 2025).
As explained in Judge Bemporad’s Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff filed this pro
se Complaint on March 31, 2025. ECF No. 1. He sought and received permission to proceed in
forma pauperis. See id.; ECF No. 4. Shortly thereafter, as a result of his harassment of court
staff, Plaintiff was ordered barred from physically entering the Courthouse beyond the Court Se-
curity Officers’ station. ECF No. 11. Although Judge Bemporad did not issue that order, Plaintiff
then moved to have Judge Bemporad recused, (ECF No. 15), which was denied, (ECF No. 19).
Plaintiff then moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Judge
Bemporad, (ECF No. 18), which was denied as “utterly frivolous,” (ECF No. 21).
On August 12, 2025, Judge Bemporad scheduled an in-person initial pretrial scheduling
conference to take place on October 22, 2025. (ECF No. 25).2 Defendants appeared for the hear-
1 See, e.g., Garces v. Hernandez, et al., 5:25-cv-81-JKP; Garces v. Hernandez, 5:25-cv-82-FB; Garces v. City of San
Antonio, Attorney Deborah Klein et al., 5:25-cv-127-FB; Garces v. Garland, et al., 5:25-cv-128-FB; Garces v. Mo-
hammed, 5:25-cv-141-JKP-ESC; Garces v. United Health Care, United Health Care Group, 5:25-cv-00256-XR-
RBF; Garces v. Hernandez, 5:25-cv-00312-XR; Garces v. Ruiz et al, 5:25-cv-00339-JKP-HJB; Garces v. Rossbach
et al, 5:25-cv-00441-JKP; Garces v. Doe et al., 5:25-cv-578-OLG-RBF; Garces v. Bisignano, 5:25-cv-579-XR-
HJB; Garces v. Saenz et al., 5:25-cv-605-OLG; Garces v. Smith et al., 5:25-cv-607-XR-HJB; Garces v. Tenet
Health, et al., 5:25-cv-636-OLG; Garces v. Pain & Spine Physicians of SA PLLC, 5:25-cv-637-XR-HJB; Garces v.
Garcia, 5:25-cv-686-FB-HJB; Garces v. Huerta et al., 5:25-cv-633-XR; Garces v. City of San Antonio et al, 5:25-
cv-00703-JKP-HJB.
2 In advance of the pretrial conference, Judge Bemporad made arrangements for Plaintiff to be escorted by court
security officers to the courtroom. A few days before the scheduled hearing, Plaintiff filed motions for judicial no-
Case 5:25-cv-00339-JKP Document 40 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 4

3
ing, as ordered, but Plaintiff did not. ECF No. 34 at 1. Accordingly, Judge Bemporad reset the
hearing and ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than November 10, 2025, as to why he
should not be sanctioned for his failure to appear on October 22, 2025. See id. The order express-
ly warned Plaintiff that any failure to comply with that deadline “may result in dismissal of this
case for failure to comply with court orders.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Nottingham v.
Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 2016)).
The November 10, 2025, deadline for response passed without any filings from Plaintiff.
On November 20, 2025, Judge Bemporad issued a second show-cause order, noting that the first
order had already admonished Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the first show-cause order
could result in dismissal of his case. ECF No. 35 at 1. This time, Judge Bemporad ordered Plain-
tiff to show cause, no later than December 3, 2025, why his case should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b). See id. To the extent Plaintiff might have incorrectly believed that he was
not permitted to file anything as a result of the Fifth Circuit’s November 17, 2025, circuit-wide
injunction against him,3 the Court expressly disabused him of any such notion in its second
show-cause order. ECF No. 35 at 1–2 n.1. That deadline, too, came and passed with no response
from Plaintiff.
For these reasons, Judge Bemporad recommends Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case and failure to
comply with the Court’s orders.
tice of an FBI criminal complaint, (ECF No. 30), and for a subpoena duces tecum, (ECF No. 31). Judge Bemporad
denied both of those motions. See Text Entry Dated Oct. 22, 2025; ECF No. 33.
3 See Garces v. Bondi, No. 25-50359 (5th Cir. Nov. 17, 2025) (“Matthew Garces is hereby BARRED from filing any
pro se, in forma pauperis lawsuit or civil pleading in any district court subject to this court’s jurisdiction without
first obtaining in advance the written permission from an active judge of the receiving forum court.”)
Case 5:25-cv-00339-JKP Document 40 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 4

4
No one has filed any objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for do-
ing so has expired. Accordingly, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only to de-
termine whether any finding or recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See
Johnson v. Sw. Research Inst., 210 F. Supp. 3d 863, 864 (W.D. Tex. 2016) (citing U.S. v. Wilson,
864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989)).4 The Court knows of no principle of law that precludes a
dismissal with prejudice as recommended under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Consistent with § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for
clear error on the face of the record. Finding no such error, the Court ACCEPTS AND
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 36). As recommended, the Court DIS-
MISSES this action with prejudice.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 6th day of January, 2026.
JASON PULLIAM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4 While Rule 72(b) does not facially require any review in the absence of a specific objection, the advisory commit-
tee notes following its adoption in 1983 state: “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Further, failure to object
shall also bar appellate review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that were
ultimately accepted by the district court, unless the party demonstrates plain error. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150-53 (1985); Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221.
Case 5:25-cv-00339-JKP Document 40 Filed 01/06/26 Page 4 of 4